From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29115 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2004 22:13:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29097 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2004 22:13:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Sep 2004 22:13:29 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C7i1p-0007UX-6S for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:13:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:13:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Abort backtrace when consecutive zero PCs? Message-ID: <20040915221329.GA28732@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <41487D1D.7040504@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41487D1D.7040504@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00132.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 01:34:21PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > One backtrace infinite loop case I've noticed (especially on ia64) is > where successive frames all have a zero PC. > > While we definitly need to allow a backtrace through a single zero PC > (for a NULL pointer call - signull.exp) should we make GDB abort when > two or more consecutive frames have a zero PC? > > (mumble something about a runtime option) > > thoughts? I still think that you want to reject zero PC followed by a normal (non-signal/dummy) frame, for exactly this reason... -- Daniel Jacobowitz